Landlord Wins in Dispute with Occupant: GORCZYNSKI v COLBOURN 2024
LTB rules Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to occupant living with landlord's child
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: October 13, 2024
Case Summary
57 Peterborough Ave, Toronto, ON M6H2K9
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Aug 2024
Order Date
Aug 14, 2024
Dispute Summary
Tenant applied for an order determining that the Landlords substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit or residential complex, harassed, obstructed, coerced, threatened or interfered with the Tenant, and withheld or interfered with their vital services or care services and meals in a care home.
Determinations
- The Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to the relationship between the parties.
- The T2 application is dismissed.
Case Study
The Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the Residential Tenancies Act applies. The evidence suggests the parties never intended for the Act to apply, as the Occupant moved in due to his relationship with the Landlord's daughter, who was already living in the house. The Landlord permitted the Occupant to live there, but did not intend to enter into a tenancy. The fact that the Landlord stopped requiring rent payments in 2016 further evidences this. Even if the Act were to apply, the exemption in section 5(i) would apply as the Occupant lived with the owner's child and shared a kitchen or bathroom with her. The doctrine of laches does not apply as there was no tenancy.
Decision Summary
The Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to the relationship between the parties, and the T2 application is dismissed.
Adjudicator Details
LTB Member
Total Orders
80
Landlord Favorable
86.3%
Tenant Favorable
11.3%
Mutual Agreement
2.5%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Source
Similar Cases
Click to switch between case outcomes
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Goklani v Cannata
Toronto tenants' maintenance dispute against landlord dismissed by LTB
Jeff v Ferguson
Woodstock landlords awarded $35,186 in rent arrears, tenants face eviction for non-payment.
Oxford Properties Group v Benjamin
Tenant ordered to pay $22,461.70 for flood damage with conditional tenancy preservation
Sufi Properties Ltd v Nieman
Tenants ordered to pay $16,866 in rent arrears to Former Landlord after complex dispute.